At 09:25 PM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: >> The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot. >> Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a >> coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage. > >A trillion dollars worth of investments in the U.S. alone, maybe? > >> >> It would certainly not be Europe. Europe bends over backwards to not >> antagonize the Arabs. What are they going to use as leverage, >> threatening an economic boycott of Saudi oil? If there was a second oil >> embargo right now, who would be hurt worse: the Saudi government who >> could wrap >> themselves in Arab solidarity...and gain at least a few months of >> breathing room, or the Western world who would find themselves very >> short of fuel? >> >> It would not be Japan, for close to the same reasons. The only country >> with any leverage at all is the US...and that leverage is the defense it >> supplies to the Saudi government. But, that leverage is minimal. >> >> I think there is little argument on this list that the Saudi government, >> before 9-11, played tribute to AQ as part of an agreement to leave them >> alone. This isn't so much support as submitting to blackmail. >> >> In short, I'm frustrated with an argument that "political pressure" might >> work without some detailed discussion of how such pressure can be >> obtained. Stern notes from all NATO members is really not much >> pressure. There has >> to be some significant negative consequences to back up the pressure. >> Otherwise it's not pressure. > >So are you telling me that no matter what Saudi Arabia does, they can get >away with it? Is there a threshold that will provoke either political or >military action? To me, the 9/11 attacks are a pretty high threshold - to >high to ignore _any_ of the participants. > >If Saudis in the U.S. had been detained and interrogated, if Saudis had >been pinpointed as the perpetrators of the attacks, then, with the world >behind us in the months after 9/11 then they could have been dealt with by >the world as long as it wasn't seen by the rest of the world as a grab for >Saudi oil by the U.S. (the way the Iraqi invasion is seen).
What do you mean by "get away with it" and "military action"? Let me put it another way. Let's say that it is March of 2002, you are National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and you are presented with evidence that the Saudi Royal Family helped fund 9/11. What is your policy reccomendation? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
